In this paper, we present our submission to the MM-ArgFallacy2025 shared task, which aims to advance research in multimodal argument mining, focusing on logical fallacies in political debates. Our approach uses pretrained Transformer-based models and proposes several ways to leverage context. In the fallacy classification subtask, our models achieved macro F1-scores of 0.4444 (text), 0.3559 (audio), and 0.4403 (multimodal). Our multimodal model showed performance comparable to the text-only model, suggesting potential for improvements.
The widespread adoption of chat interfaces based on Large Language Models (LLMs) raises concerns about promoting superficial learning and undermining the development of critical thinking skills. Instead of relying on LLMs purely for retrieving factual information, this work explores their potential to foster deeper reasoning by generating critical questions that challenge unsupported or vague claims in debate interventions. This study is part of a shared task of the 12th Workshop on Argument Mining, co-located with ACL 2025, focused on automatic critical question generation. We propose a two-step framework involving two small-scale open source language models: a Questioner that generates multiple candidate questions and a Judge that selects the most relevant ones. Our system ranked first in the shared task competition, demonstrating the potential of the proposed LLM-based approach to encourage critical engagement with argumentative texts.
Automated large-scale analysis of public discussions around contested issues like abortion requires detecting and understanding the use of arguments. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in language processing tasks, their performance in mining topic-specific, pre-defined arguments in online comments remains underexplored. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs on three argument mining tasks using datasets comprising over 2,000 opinion comments across six polarizing topics. Quantitative evaluation suggests an overall strong performance across the three tasks, especially for large and fine-tuned LLMs, albeit at a significant environmental cost. However, a detailed error analysis revealed systematic shortcomings on long and nuanced comments and emotionally charged language, raising concerns for downstream applications like content moderation or opinion analysis. Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for automated argument analysis in online comments.
Argument mining has garnered increasing attention over the years, with the recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) further propelling this trend. However, current argument relations remain relatively simplistic and foundational, struggling to capture the full scope of argument information, particularly when it comes to representing complex argument structures in real-world scenarios. To address this limitation, we propose 14 fine-grained relation types from both vertical and horizontal dimensions, thereby capturing the intricate interplay between argument components for a thorough understanding of argument structure. On this basis, we conducted extensive experiments on three tasks: argument component detection, relation prediction, and automated essay grading. Additionally, we explored the impact of writing quality on argument component detection and relation prediction, as well as the connections between discourse relations and argumentative features. The findings highlight the importance of fine-grained argumentative annotations for argumentative writing quality assessment and encourage multi-dimensional argument analysis.
This review paper explores recent advancements and emerging approaches in Information Retrieval (IR) applied to Natural Language Processing (NLP). We examine traditional IR models such as Boolean, vector space, probabilistic, and inference network models, and highlight modern techniques including deep learning, reinforcement learning, and pretrained transformer models like BERT. We discuss key tools and libraries - Lucene, Anserini, and Pyserini - for efficient text indexing and search. A comparative analysis of sparse, dense, and hybrid retrieval methods is presented, along with applications in web search engines, cross-language IR, argument mining, private information retrieval, and hate speech detection. Finally, we identify open challenges and future research directions to enhance retrieval accuracy, scalability, and ethical considerations.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks, including Argument Summarization (ArgSum), a key subfield of Argument Mining (AM). This paper investigates the integration of state-of-the-art LLMs into ArgSum, including for its evaluation. In particular, we propose a novel prompt-based evaluation scheme, and validate it through a novel human benchmark dataset. Our work makes three main contributions: (i) the integration of LLMs into existing ArgSum frameworks, (ii) the development of a new LLM-based ArgSum system, benchmarked against prior methods, and (iii) the introduction of an advanced LLM-based evaluation scheme. We demonstrate that the use of LLMs substantially improves both the generation and evaluation of argument summaries, achieving state-of-the-art results and advancing the field of ArgSum.
Argument mining algorithms analyze the argumentative structure of essays, making them a valuable tool for enhancing education by providing targeted feedback on the students' argumentation skills. While current methods often use encoder or encoder-decoder deep learning architectures, decoder-only models remain largely unexplored, offering a promising research direction. This paper proposes leveraging open-source, small Large Language Models (LLMs) for argument mining through few-shot prompting and fine-tuning. These models' small size and open-source nature ensure accessibility, privacy, and computational efficiency, enabling schools and educators to adopt and deploy them locally. Specifically, we perform three tasks: segmentation of student essays into arguments, classification of the arguments by type, and assessment of their quality. We empirically evaluate the models on the Feedback Prize - Predicting Effective Arguments dataset of grade 6-12 students essays and demonstrate how fine-tuned small LLMs outperform baseline methods in segmenting the essays and determining the argument types while few-shot prompting yields comparable performance to that of the baselines in assessing quality. This work highlights the educational potential of small, open-source LLMs to provide real-time, personalized feedback, enhancing independent learning and writing skills while ensuring low computational cost and privacy.
We show that current open-source foundational LLMs possess instruction capability and German legal background knowledge that is sufficient for some legal analysis in an educational context. However, model capability breaks down in very specific tasks, such as the classification of "Gutachtenstil" appraisal style components, or with complex contexts, such as complete legal opinions. Even with extended context and effective prompting strategies, they cannot match the Bag-of-Words baseline. To combat this, we introduce a Retrieval Augmented Generation based prompt example selection method that substantially improves predictions in high data availability scenarios. We further evaluate the performance of pre-trained LLMs on two standard tasks for argument mining and automated essay scoring and find it to be more adequate. Throughout, pre-trained LLMs improve upon the baseline in scenarios with little or no labeled data with Chain-of-Thought prompting further helping in the zero-shot case.
Rhetorical figures play an important role in our communication. They are used to convey subtle, implicit meaning, or to emphasize statements. We notice them in hate speech, fake news, and propaganda. By improving the systems for computational detection of rhetorical figures, we can also improve tasks such as hate speech and fake news detection, sentiment analysis, opinion mining, or argument mining. Unfortunately, there is a lack of annotated data, as well as qualified annotators that would help us build large corpora to train machine learning models for the detection of rhetorical figures. The situation is particularly difficult in languages other than English, and for rhetorical figures other than metaphor, sarcasm, and irony. To overcome this issue, we develop a web application called "Find your Figure" that facilitates the identification and annotation of German rhetorical figures. The application is based on the German Rhetorical ontology GRhOOT which we have specially adapted for this purpose. In addition, we improve the user experience with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). In this paper, we present the restructuring of the ontology, the development of the web application, and the built-in RAG pipeline. We also identify the optimal RAG settings for our application. Our approach is one of the first to practically use rhetorical ontologies in combination with RAG and shows promising results.
Natural Language Processing (NLP) is revolutionising the way legal professionals and laypersons operate in the legal field. The considerable potential for NLP in the legal sector, especially in developing computational tools for various legal processes, has captured the interest of researchers for years. This survey follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, reviewing 154 studies, with a final selection of 133 after manual filtering. It explores foundational concepts related to NLP in the legal domain, illustrating the unique aspects and challenges of processing legal texts, such as extensive document length, complex language, and limited open legal datasets. We provide an overview of NLP tasks specific to legal text, such as Legal Document Summarisation, legal Named Entity Recognition, Legal Question Answering, Legal Argument Mining, Legal Text Classification, and Legal Judgement Prediction. In the section on legal Language Models (LMs), we analyse both developed LMs and approaches for adapting general LMs to the legal domain. Additionally, we identify 16 Open Research Challenges, including bias in Artificial Intelligence applications, the need for more robust and interpretable models, and improving explainability to handle the complexities of legal language and reasoning.
Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify \textit{why} a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.
Rhetorical Role Labeling (RRL) of legal documents is pivotal for various downstream tasks such as summarization, semantic case search and argument mining. Existing approaches often overlook the varying difficulty levels inherent in legal document discourse styles and rhetorical roles. In this work, we propose HiCuLR, a hierarchical curriculum learning framework for RRL. It nests two curricula: Rhetorical Role-level Curriculum (RC) on the outer layer and Document-level Curriculum (DC) on the inner layer. DC categorizes documents based on their difficulty, utilizing metrics like deviation from a standard discourse structure and exposes the model to them in an easy-to-difficult fashion. RC progressively strengthens the model to discern coarse-to-fine-grained distinctions between rhetorical roles. Our experiments on four RRL datasets demonstrate the efficacy of HiCuLR, highlighting the complementary nature of DC and RC.
In the era of rapid Internet and social media platform development, individuals readily share their viewpoints online. The overwhelming quantity of these posts renders comprehensive analysis impractical. This necessitates an efficient recommendation system to filter and present significant, relevant opinions. Our research introduces a dual-pronged argument mining technique to improve recommendation system effectiveness, considering both professional and amateur investor perspectives. Our first strategy involves using the discrepancy between target and closing prices as an opinion indicator. The second strategy applies argument mining principles to score investors' opinions, subsequently ranking them by these scores. Experimental results confirm the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating its ability to identify opinions with higher profit potential. Beyond profitability, our research extends to risk analysis, examining the relationship between recommended opinions and investor behaviors. This offers a holistic view of potential outcomes following the adoption of these recommended opinions.
Argument mining is natural language processing technology aimed at identifying arguments in text. Furthermore, the approach is being developed to identify the premises and claims of those arguments, and to identify the relationships between arguments including support and attack relationships. In this paper, we assume that an argument map contains the premises and claims of arguments, and support and attack relationships between them, that have been identified by argument mining. So from a piece of text, we assume an argument map is obtained automatically by natural language processing. However, to understand and to automatically analyse that argument map, it would be desirable to instantiate that argument map with logical arguments. Once we have the logical representation of the arguments in an argument map, we can use automated reasoning to analyze the argumentation (e.g. check consistency of premises, check validity of claims, and check the labelling on each arc corresponds with thw logical arguments). We address this need by using classical logic for representing the explicit information in the text, and using default logic for representing the implicit information in the text. In order to investigate our proposal, we consider some specific options for instantiation.
Dialogical Argument Mining(DialAM) is an important branch of Argument Mining(AM). DialAM-2024 is a shared task focusing on dialogical argument mining, which requires us to identify argumentative relations and illocutionary relations among proposition nodes and locution nodes. To accomplish this, we propose a two-stage pipeline, which includes the Two-Step S-Node Prediction Model in Stage 1 and the YA-Node Prediction Model in Stage 2. We also augment the training data in both stages and introduce context in Stage 2. We successfully completed the task and achieved good results. Our team Pokemon ranked 1st in the ARI Focused score and 4th in the Global Focused score.
Recent research on sequence labelling has been exploring different strategies to mitigate the lack of manually annotated data for the large majority of the world languages. Among others, the most successful approaches have been based on (i) the cross-lingual transfer capabilities of multilingual pre-trained language models (model-transfer), (ii) data translation and label projection (data-transfer) and (iii), prompt-based learning by reusing the mask objective to exploit the few-shot capabilities of pre-trained language models (few-shot). Previous work seems to conclude that model-transfer outperforms data-transfer methods and that few-shot techniques based on prompting are superior to updating the model's weights via fine-tuning. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that, for Argument Mining, a sequence labelling task which requires the detection of long and complex discourse structures, previous insights on cross-lingual transfer or few-shot learning do not apply. Contrary to previous work, we show that for Argument Mining data transfer obtains better results than model-transfer and that fine-tuning outperforms few-shot methods. Regarding the former, the domain of the dataset used for data-transfer seems to be a deciding factor, while, for few-shot, the type of task (length and complexity of the sequence spans) and sampling method prove to be crucial.
We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist
We give a detailed overview of the CAIL 2023 Argument Mining Track, one of the Chinese AI and Law Challenge (CAIL) 2023 tracks. The main goal of the track is to identify and extract interacting argument pairs in trial dialogs. It mainly uses summarized judgment documents but can also refer to trial recordings. The track consists of two stages, and we introduce the tasks designed for each stage; we also extend the data from previous events into a new dataset -- CAIL2023-ArgMine -- with annotated new cases from various causes of action. We outline several submissions that achieve the best results, including their methods for different stages. While all submissions rely on language models, they have incorporated strategies that may benefit future work in this field.
Argument Mining (AM) involves identifying and extracting Argumentative Components (ACs) and their corresponding Argumentative Relations (ARs). Most of the prior works have broken down these tasks into multiple sub-tasks. Existing end-to-end setups primarily use the dependency parsing approach. This work introduces a generative paradigm-based end-to-end framework argTANL. argTANL frames the argumentative structures into label-augmented text, called Augmented Natural Language (ANL). This framework jointly extracts both ACs and ARs from a given argumentative text. Additionally, this study explores the impact of Argumentative and Discourse markers on enhancing the model's performance within the proposed framework. Two distinct frameworks, Marker-Enhanced argTANL (ME-argTANL) and argTANL with specialized Marker-Based Fine-Tuning, are proposed to achieve this. Extensive experiments are conducted on three standard AM benchmarks to demonstrate the superior performance of the ME-argTANL.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in NLP and deep learning. In-Context Learning (ICL) has been suggested as a bridging paradigm between the training-free and fine-tuning LLMs settings. In ICL, an LLM is conditioned to solve tasks by means of a few solved demonstration examples included as prompt. Argument Mining (AM) aims to extract the complex argumentative structure of a text, and Argument Type Classification (ATC) is an essential sub-task of AM. We introduce an ICL strategy for ATC combining kNN-based examples selection and majority vote ensembling. In the training-free ICL setting, we show that GPT-4 is able to leverage relevant information from only a few demonstration examples and achieve very competitive classification accuracy on ATC. We further set up a fine-tuning strategy incorporating well-crafted structural features given directly in textual form. In this setting, GPT-3.5 achieves state-of-the-art performance on ATC. Overall, these results emphasize the emergent ability of LLMs to grasp global discursive flow in raw text in both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned setups.